JACKIE LAMAR BRYAN, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Jackie Lamar Bryan was convicted of second-degree murder, but the Florida appellate court reversed his conviction because the trial judge failed to accompany the jury to a view of the crime scene (a truck), violating a mandatory statutory requirement under Florida law.
The judge's absence at the jury view constitutes reversible error. Florida Statute 918.05 specifically requires the judge to be present at jury views of crime scenes, and this requirement cannot be waived by the defendant's absence waiver alone; only an express waiver of the judge's presence by the defendant through counsel constitutes an exception to this rule.
[1] A judge must accompany the jury to a view of a crime scene as required by statute.
[2] The absence of a judge at a jury view of a crime scene constitutes reversible error.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The judge and defendant, unless the defendant absents himself without permission of the court, shall be present, and the prosecuting attorney and defense counsel may be present at the view.”
Statutory language from Section 918.05, Florida Statutes, establishing the mandatory requirement for judicial presence at jury views.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBryan was charged with second-degree murder for shooting the victim who was sitting in a truck. The trial court ordered the jury to view the truck whe…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
FRANK, Acting Chief Judge.
Jackie Lamar Bryan has raised seven issues on appeal, the first of which has merit and is dispositive. Bryan has contended that the judge erred in failing to accompany the jury to a view of crime scene evidence — a truck in which the victim of second degree murder was sitting when Bryan shot him. We agree and reverse.
Section 918.05, Florida Statutes (1987), specifically requires a judge to be present at a jury view of a crime scene:
View by jury. — When a court determines that it is proper for the jury to view a place where the offense may have been committed or other material events may have occurred, it may order the jury to be conducted in a body to the place, in custody of a proper officer. The court shall admonish the officer that no person, including the officer, shall be allowed to communicate with the jury about any subject connected with the trial. The jury shall be returned to the courtroom in accordance with the directions of the court. The judge and defendant, unless the defendant absents himself without permission of the court, shall be present, and the prosecuting attorney and defense counsel may be present at the view.
The judge properly admonished the jurors about communications among them and the defendant’s attorney waived Bryan’s presence. It is evident from the record that the judge did not accompany the jurors to the view, nor did Bryan waive the judge’s presence.
According to Dodd v. State, 209 So. 2d 666 (Fla.1968), and McCollum v. State, 74 So. 2d 74 (Fla.1954), the judge’s absence at a jury view constitutes reversible error. The only exception to that rule — not applicable here — is the case in which the defendant, through counsel, has expressly waived the judge’s presence. Brown v. State, 538 So. 2d 833 (Fla.1989); Roberts v. State, 510 So. 2d 885 (Fla.1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 943, 108 S.Ct. 1123, 99 L.Ed.2d 284 (1988). The state has suggested that the following language in State v. Singletary, 549 So. 2d 996 (Fla.1989), has eroded the rule: “the judge’s presence at a jury view ... has no impact upon a defendant’s fundamental constitutional right to a trial by an impartial jury.” Those words are directed, however, to the sufficiency of counsel’s — rather than the defendant’s— waiver. Because the judge did not accompany the jury to the view of the truck, and because neither Bryan nor his counsel waived the judge’s presence, his convictions are re versed and this cause is remanded for a new trial.
THREADGILL and PARKER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Roberts v. State, 510 So. 2d 885 (Fla. 1987)
- Roberts v. Florida, 485 U.S. 943 (U.S. 1988)
- Brown v. State, 538 So. 2d 833 (Fla. 1989)
- Erickson v. Alltech Assocs., Inc., 485 U.S. 943 (U.S. 1988)
- State v. Singletary, 549 So. 2d 996 (Fla. 1989)
- McCOLLUM v. State, 74 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 1954)
- Hurshel Ross Dodd v. State, 209 So. 2d 666 (Fla. 1968)